8 ms·

At UC Berkeley, 76% of applicants were rejected on the grounds of their diversity statement: https://thehill.com/opinion/education/480603-what-is-uc-davis-hidin

At UC Berkeley, 76% of applicants were rejected on the grounds of their diversity statement: https://thehill.com/opinion/education/480603-what-is-uc-davis-hiding-about-its-use-of-diversity-statements/ https://thehill.com/opinion/education/480603-what-is-uc-davi... The suspicion is that inclusion of these diversity statements in the hiring process is a way to stealthily discriminate on the basis of race when it is ostensibly illegal to do so.

gamblor956 4y ago
The opinion piece you cited made the mistake of citing its source. It misrepresents what happened at Cal. Candidates were not rejected on the basis of their statement, which was merely one factor in scoring the 800+ candidates they interviewed.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  From the cited sources [1]: > A total of 993 applications were received, of which 893 met basic qualifications. The LSI Committee conducted a first review and evaluated candidates based solely on contributions to diversity, equity and inclusion. Only candidates that met a high standard in this area were advanced for further review, narrowing the pool down to 214 for serious consideration. What was misrepresented? "Evaluated solely on contributions to diversity, equity and inclusion [sic]" is not quite the same as evaluated solely on their diversity statement, but it doesn't seem too far off the mark. Aside from the candidates' diversity statement, how would the bureaucrats evaluate their "contribution to diversity, equity, and inclusion"? As far as the effect on applicant demographics, here's the stats before the diversity evaluation / After diversity evaluation: Female: 41.7% / 60.3% Male: 56.5% / 39.3% African American: 2.8% / 6.1% Hispanic: 13.2% / 22.9% Native American: 0.4% / 1.4% Asian: 25.7% / 18.7% White: 53.7% / 48.1% 1. https://ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/life_sciences_inititatve.year_end_report_summary.pdf https://ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/life_sciences_...
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    The candidates were reviewed based on their "contributions to diversity, equity, etc." They were not reviewed based on their DEI statements. This is a fancy way of saying that they used affirmative action to advanced African American, Hispanic, and Native American candidates.
    - heygood 4y ago
      Considering affirmative action is explicitly illegal in California, I would hope that it wouldn't be the case of candidates being advanced solely by race, and that the diversity statements are what is being considered the 'contribution' here, unless there are some loopholes in the law that I'm not aware of.
      - crackercrews 4y ago
        Not illegal everywhere. But it is illegal for CA govt hiring, so this would be illegal.
      - gamblor956 4y ago
        In California, affirmative action is only illegal with respect to university admissions (meaning students), not with respect to hiring. Race-conscious hiring is allowed if it would increase under-represented minorities. Whether you agree, or disagree with this policy (which I think most of us do), it is nonetheless legal in California, and it is what happened at the UC schools mentioned in the opinion piece you cited. Fun fact: Berkeley and UCLA each employ more conservative professors than most "conservative" schools do. But they employ real conservatives, not the modern snowflake conservatives that constantly portrays themselves as victims.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      > The candidates were reviewed based on their "contributions to diversity, equity, etc." They were not reviewed based on their DEI statements. And what does this mean, besides reviewing their DEI statements? We know that review of diversity statements are one component of this - you keep alluding to the notion that there's more to it than that, but neglect to actually provide any such example of how the universities measured this contribution besides their diversity statement. > This is a fancy way of saying that they used affirmative action to advanced African American, Hispanic, and Native American candidates. This is illegal in California. This is why people speculate that the review of diversity statements is a smokescreen for universities to illegally discriminate on the basis of protected classes.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- zone411 4y ago
  No. In addition to what the sibling posts cited, this https://651d7eef-05d1-4785-8f04-93b49cc8d71f.filesusr.com/ugd/257e28_99034734731c4b748f6c7df78005bb99.pdf https://651d7eef-05d1-4785-8f04-93b49cc8d71f.filesusr.com/ug... says: >...ways of using the statements by reading them _prior_ to any other components of the application, scoring them using a rubric of their choice, and deciding which applicants to consider further using the entirety of the application. Exercising their discretion, faculty on some committees elected to move most applicants forward, while others (especially from the large colleges) preferred to continue with less than 50% of the original applicant pool. So based solely on the DEI statement, some have rejected over 50% of applicants without taking the rest of the application into consideration.
wolongong942 4y ago
I'm unfamiliar with US colleges, but could this just be a scheme to allow wealthy or well connected people to get into positions without the grades part? It would otherwise be pretty easy to show unjust discrimination if it were only grades being considered, but an applicant's 'diversity score' could mean anything, and is arbitrary on purpose to justify approving just about anybody.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  This is for faculty positions, which are employment. Ironically, that has stricter non-descrimination provisions than school admissions.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Not in public California universities. Racial discrimination has been banned in California public university since Proposition 209 was passed in 1996.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      Which democrats tried to repeal in 2020.
      - judge2020 4y ago
        Because it was used to achieve diversity goals, and 209 prevents that. Like the point made here[0], it's de-facto reparations by advantaging those who were/have been affected by lost generational wealth (unequal schools and racist HOA & loan policies). Whether or not this is the right way to go about it is indeed a split issue evidenced by the 57/43 2020 vote and 55/45 vote that passed the original 96 proposition. The proposition you failed to link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_16 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34673427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34673427
        4y ago
kova12 4y ago
It is not a suspicion, as suspicion would indicate there is a chance discrimination might not be happening; when d&i literally is discrimination, by definition.
anigbrowl 4y ago
In other words, UC Berkeley rejected 76 percent of qualified applicants without even considering their teaching skills, their publication history, their potential for academic excellence or their ability to contribute to their field. As far as the university knew, these applicants could well have been the next Albert Einstein or Jonas Salk, or they might have been outstanding and innovative educators who would make a significant difference in students’ lives. Welcome to the historical experience of numerous underprivileged people who were excluded through no fault of their own. But since DEI statements can be rewritten at any time, applicants are not stuck with the prospect of permanent exclusion. I am not a fan of college administrators in general, nor of the heavy-handed bureaucratic approach described here. But administrators are looking for faculty who can produce more distinguished grads in the future, who might be 'the next Albert Einstein or Jonas Salk'. You could be an outstanding brain in your field, but if you're not interested in maximizing the search for undiscovered talent, are you likely to attract it to your school?
- crackercrews 4y ago
  > Welcome to the historical experience of numerous underprivileged people who were excluded through no fault of their own. Emphasis on historical. You have to make sure not to swing the pendulum too far, otherwise you'll just end up creating a new generation of aggrieved people. Especially if your actions are themselves illegal.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Maybe you should have read the rest of the comment, which addressed these concerns.
    - crackercrews 4y ago
      Maybe you should consider the possibility that I read your entire comment multiple times and found it unconvincing.
      - anigbrowl 4y ago
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
Note the above article is referring to job applicants, not student applicants. It lowers the severity of the finding a bit, but just a bit.
mock-possum 4y ago
reading the guidelines for 'grading' those submitted diversity statements... I'm not sure I see what's so objectionable about them: > https://651d7eef-05d1-4785-8f04-93b49cc8d71f.filesusr.com/ugd/257e28_c4caf79113344c0db55f1650fa744a0a.pdf https://651d7eef-05d1-4785-8f04-93b49cc8d71f.filesusr.com/ug... It seems like you are expected, as a staff member in a position to influence the diversity of your workplace and of the students whose educational experience you exercise power over, to do so in a manner consciences of issues of diversity, not even just in general, but in the specific context of your job. I mean, just for instance, a low '1' rank is described as, among other things: (*my emphasis*) > Defines diversity only in terms of different areas of study or different nationalities, but doesn’t discuss gender or ethnicity/race. Discusses diversity in vague terms or platitudes. Does not provide any evidence of having informed themselves about diversity. *May discount the importance of diversity.* I mean - yeah, I wouldn't want someone who fits that description being in charge of my education, or my kid's education - I wouldn't even want to be around a coworker who fits that description. I'm not even sure how well it would work trying to be friends with someone like that - I mean, in this day and age? How could you possibly excuse being so irresponsibly underinformed of such an important issue? Compare that to a high '5' rank: (again *my emphasis*) > Clear knowledge of experience with, and interest in dimensions of diversity that result from having URM identities. This understanding can result from personal experiences *as well as an investment in learning about the URM experiences of those with identities different from their own* ... Comfort discussing diversity-related issues (including distinctions and connections between diversity, equity, and inclusion), both in writing, and in a job talk session and one-on-one meetings with students, staff, and faculty. I mean - that sounds really good doesn't it? Why shouldn't that skill set make someone a more attractive candidate to hire? Isn't that all good stuff that we would all benefit from more people being well-versed in? Doesn't demonstrating that well-versedness indicate a willingness to put the work in, as required to help actively oppose systemic oppression and bigotry? (as opposed to merely paying lip service to an ideal?) What would you rather see here?
- caskstrength 4y ago
  Hmmm, I'm not from the US and I really can't tell whether your comment is serious or a parody.

gamblor956 4y ago

The opinion piece you cited made the mistake of citing its source. It misrepresents what happened at Cal. Candidates were not rejected on the basis of their statement, which was merely one factor in scoring the 800+ candidates they interviewed.

Manuel_D 4y ago
From the cited sources [1]: > A total of 993 applications were received, of which 893 met basic qualifications. The LSI Committee conducted a first review and evaluated candidates based solely on contributions to diversity, equity and inclusion. Only candidates that met a high standard in this area were advanced for further review, narrowing the pool down to 214 for serious consideration. What was misrepresented? "Evaluated solely on contributions to diversity, equity and inclusion [sic]" is not quite the same as evaluated solely on their diversity statement, but it doesn't seem too far off the mark. Aside from the candidates' diversity statement, how would the bureaucrats evaluate their "contribution to diversity, equity, and inclusion"? As far as the effect on applicant demographics, here's the stats before the diversity evaluation / After diversity evaluation: Female: 41.7% / 60.3% Male: 56.5% / 39.3% African American: 2.8% / 6.1% Hispanic: 13.2% / 22.9% Native American: 0.4% / 1.4% Asian: 25.7% / 18.7% White: 53.7% / 48.1% 1. https://ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/life_sciences_inititatve.year_end_report_summary.pdf https://ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/life_sciences_...
- gamblor956 4y ago
  The candidates were reviewed based on their "contributions to diversity, equity, etc." They were not reviewed based on their DEI statements. This is a fancy way of saying that they used affirmative action to advanced African American, Hispanic, and Native American candidates.
  - heygood 4y ago
    Considering affirmative action is explicitly illegal in California, I would hope that it wouldn't be the case of candidates being advanced solely by race, and that the diversity statements are what is being considered the 'contribution' here, unless there are some loopholes in the law that I'm not aware of.
    - crackercrews 4y ago
      Not illegal everywhere. But it is illegal for CA govt hiring, so this would be illegal.
    - gamblor956 4y ago
      In California, affirmative action is only illegal with respect to university admissions (meaning students), not with respect to hiring. Race-conscious hiring is allowed if it would increase under-represented minorities. Whether you agree, or disagree with this policy (which I think most of us do), it is nonetheless legal in California, and it is what happened at the UC schools mentioned in the opinion piece you cited. Fun fact: Berkeley and UCLA each employ more conservative professors than most "conservative" schools do. But they employ real conservatives, not the modern snowflake conservatives that constantly portrays themselves as victims.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    > The candidates were reviewed based on their "contributions to diversity, equity, etc." They were not reviewed based on their DEI statements. And what does this mean, besides reviewing their DEI statements? We know that review of diversity statements are one component of this - you keep alluding to the notion that there's more to it than that, but neglect to actually provide any such example of how the universities measured this contribution besides their diversity statement. > This is a fancy way of saying that they used affirmative action to advanced African American, Hispanic, and Native American candidates. This is illegal in California. This is why people speculate that the review of diversity statements is a smokescreen for universities to illegally discriminate on the basis of protected classes.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zone411 4y ago
No. In addition to what the sibling posts cited, this https://651d7eef-05d1-4785-8f04-93b49cc8d71f.filesusr.com/ugd/257e28_99034734731c4b748f6c7df78005bb99.pdf https://651d7eef-05d1-4785-8f04-93b49cc8d71f.filesusr.com/ug... says: >...ways of using the statements by reading them _prior_ to any other components of the application, scoring them using a rubric of their choice, and deciding which applicants to consider further using the entirety of the application. Exercising their discretion, faculty on some committees elected to move most applicants forward, while others (especially from the large colleges) preferred to continue with less than 50% of the original applicant pool. So based solely on the DEI statement, some have rejected over 50% of applicants without taking the rest of the application into consideration.

wolongong942 4y ago

I'm unfamiliar with US colleges, but could this just be a scheme to allow wealthy or well connected people to get into positions without the grades part? It would otherwise be pretty easy to show unjust discrimination if it were only grades being considered, but an applicant's 'diversity score' could mean anything, and is arbitrary on purpose to justify approving just about anybody.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
This is for faculty positions, which are employment. Ironically, that has stricter non-descrimination provisions than school admissions.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Not in public California universities. Racial discrimination has been banned in California public university since Proposition 209 was passed in 1996.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    Which democrats tried to repeal in 2020.
    - judge2020 4y ago
      Because it was used to achieve diversity goals, and 209 prevents that. Like the point made here[0], it's de-facto reparations by advantaging those who were/have been affected by lost generational wealth (unequal schools and racist HOA & loan policies). Whether or not this is the right way to go about it is indeed a split issue evidenced by the 57/43 2020 vote and 55/45 vote that passed the original 96 proposition. The proposition you failed to link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_16 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34673427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34673427
      - 4y ago

kova12 4y ago

It is not a suspicion, as suspicion would indicate there is a chance discrimination might not be happening; when d&i literally is discrimination, by definition.

anigbrowl 4y ago

In other words, UC Berkeley rejected 76 percent of qualified applicants without even considering their teaching skills, their publication history, their potential for academic excellence or their ability to contribute to their field. As far as the university knew, these applicants could well have been the next Albert Einstein or Jonas Salk, or they might have been outstanding and innovative educators who would make a significant difference in students’ lives. Welcome to the historical experience of numerous underprivileged people who were excluded through no fault of their own. But since DEI statements can be rewritten at any time, applicants are not stuck with the prospect of permanent exclusion. I am not a fan of college administrators in general, nor of the heavy-handed bureaucratic approach described here. But administrators are looking for faculty who can produce more distinguished grads in the future, who might be 'the next Albert Einstein or Jonas Salk'. You could be an outstanding brain in your field, but if you're not interested in maximizing the search for undiscovered talent, are you likely to attract it to your school?

crackercrews 4y ago
> Welcome to the historical experience of numerous underprivileged people who were excluded through no fault of their own. Emphasis on historical. You have to make sure not to swing the pendulum too far, otherwise you'll just end up creating a new generation of aggrieved people. Especially if your actions are themselves illegal.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Maybe you should have read the rest of the comment, which addressed these concerns.
  - crackercrews 4y ago
    Maybe you should consider the possibility that I read your entire comment multiple times and found it unconvincing.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago

seanmcdirmid 4y ago

Note the above article is referring to job applicants, not student applicants. It lowers the severity of the finding a bit, but just a bit.

mock-possum 4y ago

reading the guidelines for 'grading' those submitted diversity statements... I'm not sure I see what's so objectionable about them: > https://651d7eef-05d1-4785-8f04-93b49cc8d71f.filesusr.com/ugd/257e28_c4caf79113344c0db55f1650fa744a0a.pdf https://651d7eef-05d1-4785-8f04-93b49cc8d71f.filesusr.com/ug... It seems like you are expected, as a staff member in a position to influence the diversity of your workplace and of the students whose educational experience you exercise power over, to do so in a manner consciences of issues of diversity, not even just in general, but in the specific context of your job. I mean, just for instance, a low '1' rank is described as, among other things: (*my emphasis*) > Defines diversity only in terms of different areas of study or different nationalities, but doesn’t discuss gender or ethnicity/race. Discusses diversity in vague terms or platitudes. Does not provide any evidence of having informed themselves about diversity. *May discount the importance of diversity.* I mean - yeah, I wouldn't want someone who fits that description being in charge of my education, or my kid's education - I wouldn't even want to be around a coworker who fits that description. I'm not even sure how well it would work trying to be friends with someone like that - I mean, in this day and age? How could you possibly excuse being so irresponsibly underinformed of such an important issue? Compare that to a high '5' rank: (again *my emphasis*) > Clear knowledge of experience with, and interest in dimensions of diversity that result from having URM identities. This understanding can result from personal experiences *as well as an investment in learning about the URM experiences of those with identities different from their own* ... Comfort discussing diversity-related issues (including distinctions and connections between diversity, equity, and inclusion), both in writing, and in a job talk session and one-on-one meetings with students, staff, and faculty. I mean - that sounds really good doesn't it? Why shouldn't that skill set make someone a more attractive candidate to hire? Isn't that all good stuff that we would all benefit from more people being well-versed in? Doesn't demonstrating that well-versedness indicate a willingness to put the work in, as required to help actively oppose systemic oppression and bigotry? (as opposed to merely paying lip service to an ideal?) What would you rather see here?

caskstrength 4y ago
Hmmm, I'm not from the US and I really can't tell whether your comment is serious or a parody.